I could say the exact same ♥♥♥♥ thing to you and be twice as right.

The fact that you said "If you don't agree, don't post" just proves that.

Before this thing goes from smoldering to outright inferno I'd like to point out what Tucker said above



Lets move back to what the topic should be rather than what it is. Both Tucker and 3pok are pouring flammable liquids on this thread. Aight?

Stop italicizing your points like they're gods gift to the forum and humanity at large. It looks like you think you're coup de grâce-ing my arguments, and you're not. I edited some more points into my post before you posted.
What do you hope to accomplish by posting? I, for instance, hope to educate people who are willing to listen, and to discuss a subject that I enjoy with people that are capable of intelligent conversations.
What do you intend to give or get out of insulting a group of people?

p3lb0x, I agree that this sort of conversation isn't conducive to the discussion at large, but I'm curious as to what he thinks he's going to accomplish by blundering here shouting about how we're all drug addicts or whatever. I'd like you to allow him to respond, within reason.

The first point is wonderfully preempted by the OP, so I'll focus on the second.

I've made two posts in which I endorsed The Union, and in one, I suggested that MLC watch it because I thought he might find it informative.
I didn't say that he is brainwashed/dumb/horrible, just implied that I thought he may benefit from watching it.

For the record, I think you might also benefit from watching it; even if it doesn't change your point of view, you will most likely be able to make better informed arguments.

Does anyone mind constructive discussion about pro-drugs/anti-drugs? (not that this is particularly constructive.)

Okay, this is getting a bit heated, but, uh, Ophanim, I think I see the problem, which is this: most of your argument revolves around the social stigmas around marijuana. I, obviously, don't grow up around such things. As you said before, weed is pretty much accepted here. Other than the hardcore hicks and the high-class punkalunks, we don't have to deal with that. So I guess is the problem...oh, and when I said you can't compare the two, I didn't mean profit. I mean (as far as I know, which isn't a lot) that there aren't nearly as many violent crimes associated with trafficking of marijuana today versus alchohol in the '20s.

This is going south fast.


What is everybody's opinion on anti-drug organizations?
And do you agree/dissagree with the way marijuana is handled in your country, and what would you change about it if you could?

Uh, all of the drug cartels are primarily funded by the profits from marijuana. Are you saying that the drug cartels aren't that bad and they're actually regular contributors from charity? Plus, you're in Wisconsin, most of your weed is gonna come from the Emerald Triangle, and not Mexico, so there's going to be less of a gang presence around where you are.

No. I am not going to waste half an hour writing a response to a post about a topic for which I have no passion or interest in. I can write a quick, disdain drenched sentence and be off, but I will not waste time with such dribble.



I haven't seen a raid in a while, so I'd assume poorly.

Then I'll thank you to continue your current restraint.
Moving on, I'm curious as to the number among you that admit to smoking? All I remember is whitty and I. Also, I'd like to know your sativa/indica preference, your pricing, favorite strain (if any, a description would suffice, but please something beyond YO THIS GOT ME SO HIGH), any information you want to come forward with.
I, for instance, prefer sativa, pay about 5 a g for decent mids, pay 110 for an oz of decent mids, and my favorite strain so far has been some fire-ass Alaskan ♥♥♥♥ from down south.

Well, obviously I'm pro-legalization (not just decriminalization), and am of the opinion that the DEA is doing an awful job of infringing upon peoples' rights, even though they shouldn't be in the first place. They're horribly inefficient cowboys who should be focusing on preventing the ♥♥♥♥ like meth and coke and heroin and ♥♥♥♥ from getting into the country(I disagree with prohibition period, but this is more likely to do at least some good), not busting the dude down the street who moves an oz a week at most.

Marc Emery lol enough said

3POK, you are repeatedly being unconstructive and argumentative without offering any real reason as to why you disagree, even though you've already admitted you have no passion or interest in the topic.

We must assume that you either lied about your interest in the topic, or that you are just unfathomably idiotic.
I would prefer to assume the former, personally.

Edit:
I think this article sums up the current state of affairs in the UK quite nicely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... utt-sacked

I'll see if I can find the actual report.

I don't think I've written any lengthy post, have I? No? Only brief, disdain drenched posts?

User was banned for this post - Being warned 3 times in a thread for the same thing is dumb. Also, if this post is to be believed you're posting short hateful posts just for the sake of posting? This is not really good posting behavior. - p3lb0x

Oh man, you must have eaten a BIG breakfast to produce the amount of ♥♥♥♥ you're leaving in this thread.

I think Pete has summed it up rather nicely. You are being needless argumentative without offering any support, I think it's cool that you have "short disdain-drenched posts" but more productively those could be put into a little private poem book for yourself to enjoy, as it is clear that no one else feels the same self-important giddiness you must feel from it.

He's been warned that if he does it again, it's a ban, so for now, ignore the posts, and in the future just report 'em. He's perfectly welcome to participate in civil discussion, though.